Mr Charles Haughey held 12.5 per cent of shares in Celtic Helicopters, according to a merchant bank memorandum shown to the Moriarty tribunal.
Mr Haughey's involvement in the helicopter company was recorded following a meeting between an official with Smurfit Paribas and Mr Ciaran Haughey and his business partner, Mr John Barnicle, who were seeking a five-year £90,000 loan for a second helicopter.
The former lending official, Mr Michael Curneen, said yesterday that Mr Haughey's involvement "would have added to the credibility of the application".
Counsel for Celtic Helicopters, Ms Caroline Costello, said it would be the evidence of Mr Ciaran Haughey and Mr Barnicle that this was incorrect and Mr Charles Haughey had never been a shareholder.
The tribunal heard that Mr Curneen, who now runs a printing business, was working as a lending officer for Smurfit Paribas merchant bank in 1986.
Celtic Helicopters had sought a £90,000 loan facility from Smurfit Paribas to obtain a second helicopter for the company, a Bell 206 BJ Ranger.
On either June 4th or 5th, 1986, Mr Curneen met Mr Ciaran Haughey and Mr Barnicle and discussed this application.
During the meeting, Mr Curneen said he was given a number of documents and financial projections which had been prepared by Haughey Boland. Celtic Helicopters wanted to expand its business.
Following the meeting, Mr Curneen typed a memo outlining the application for the leasing facility. The decision would be taken by the bank's credit committee, based on Mr Curneen's recommendations.
The memo written by Mr Curneen stated that Mr Ciaran Haughey and Mr Barnicle each had a 30 per cent shareholding and that Mr Charles Haughey had a 12.5 per cent share. Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Jerry Healy SC, asked Mr Curneen whether it was a feature in his recommendation for approval for the loan that one of the company's owners was "a prominent person in Irish life".
"It would have added to the credibility of the application," replied Mr Curneen.
Mr Healy asked whether it would have affected Celtic Helicopters' application if Mr Charles Haughey had not been a shareholder.
Mr Curneen said it was "part of the jigsaw that painted the final picture as a good one". However, he said it was possible the application would still have been approved if Mr Haughey had not been involved as the business had fundamentally looked profitable.
Asked again by Mr Healy how important it had been that one of the shareholders was then leader of the opposition, Mr Curneen said it was "part of an overall picture".
Ms Costello said that both Mr Ciaran Haughey and Mr Barnicle had already told the tribunal that Mr Charles Haughey was never a shareholder in the company.
Regarding Mr Curneen's memorandum, Ms Costello asked whether it was possible that Mr Charles Haughey had been mentioned as a contact of the company, rather than as a shareholder.
Mr Curneen said he thought it was unlikely, otherwise he would have had no reason to put it in the application.
Ms Costello stressed that in addition to the evidence of Mr Ciaran Haughey and Mr Barnicle, an accountant of the company would also give evidence that there was no 12.5 per cent shareholding in 1986. She asked Mr Curneen again if there was some confusion over this matter.
"I think you can take it that what I wrote down was what I understood to be the case," said Mr Curneen.